Re: [OPSAWG] [netmod] Adoption call for draft-ma-opsawg-schedule-yang-04

[King, Daniel]

Hi All,

I fully support the work and would like you to see it progress within NETMOD, 
and have WG reviews and contributions.

As a co-author of the I-D and regular attendee of the network schedule side 
meetings we've had at the last few IETFs, this is an important capability that 
can be applied to several use cases.

Thanks, Dan.

From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) 
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 1:49 PM
To: Kent Watsen ; net...@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Adoption call for draft-ma-opsawg-schedule-yang-04

I support adoption of this work.  It forms the foundation of work in other WGs, 
and I'm happy to have this worked by netmod if there is sufficient interest.

As an opsawg co-chair, I'm copying opsawg to get their opinions.  This work has 
been presented there and is a dependency of an ACL draft currently adopted by 
opsawg.

Joe

From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on 
behalf of Kent Watsen mailto:kent+i...@watsen.net>>
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 11:50
To: net...@ietf.org 
mailto:net...@ietf.org>>
Subject: [netmod] Adoption call for draft-ma-opsawg-schedule-yang-04
NETMOD WG,

This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:

A Common YANG Data Model for Scheduling
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ma-opsawg-schedule-yang

PS: This draft moved from OPSAWG to NETMOD

There is no known IPR on this draft:


https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/mg1KP3m6bCSXh-3N-YKLvEb_udk/

Please voice your support or technical objections to adoption on the list by 
the end of the day Apr 10 (any time zone).

Thank you,
Kent (as co-chair)

___
netmod mailing list
net...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

[Henk Birkholz]

Dear OPSAWG members,

this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of


https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03.html


ending on Thursday, May 2nd.

As a reminder, this I-D summarizes how the term "Operations, 
Administration, and Maintenance" (OAM) is used currently & historically 
in the IETF and intends to consolidate unambiguous and protocol agnostic 
terminology for OAM. The summary includes descriptions of narrower 
semantics introduced by added qualifications the term OAM and a list of 
common capabilities that can be found in nodes processing OAM packets.


The chairs acknowledge a positive poll result at IETF119, but there has 
not been much discussion on the list yet. We would like to gather 
feedback from the WG if there is interest to further contribute and 
review. As a potential enabler for discussions, this call will last 
three weeks.


Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments 
you may have.



For the OPSAWG co-chairs,

Henk

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

[Carlos Pignataro]

Hi, Suresh,

Thanks for the response, and apologies for my delay!

Please find my follow-up inline below, and in the meantime, one additional
question to you -- context (my emphasis):

   - I seem to have gotten the impression, from your words and IAB program
   lead slides, that there was no eimpact-related meeting in Brisbane, and the
   goal was to push drafts through the respective WGs and not through a
   WG-forming BOF:
  - https://youtu.be/bfpuL1mkr3U?feature=shared&t=9646
  -
  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/slides-interim-2024-eimpact-02-sessa-chair-slides-01
 - "Metrics – *Push through the WGs*"
 - "Benchmarking scenario or methodology standardization – *BMWG*"
 - "Carbon-aware routing – *IRTF? TVR?*"
 - "Do an interim session on backcasting what we need to do"
  -
  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/minutes-interim-2024-eimpact-02-202402161500-00
  - "Suresh mentioned that the dispatch function is certainly in scope
 and depending on the readiness for engineering the work will
end up in the
 IETF or the IRTF. "
  - But then, you were proponent of a side-meeting
  - https://wiki.ietf.org/en/meeting/119/sidemeetings
  - "Power Metrics: concrete usage example", "mpalm...@cisco.com,
 jlind...@cisco.com, sure...@cisco.com"
 -  that said " (4) next steps? E.g. *WG coordination/status, form
 a WG Design Team, call for a BOF?*"
  - Even though the IAB slides on IETF119 say:
  - "Short term focus on metrics, benchmarking with dispatch to *relevant
  IETF WGs*"
  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-iabopen-chair-slides-00
  - "*No in-person program meetings at IETF-119* But feel free to join
  the program mailing list: e...@iab.org and e-imp...@iab.org"
  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-ietf-sessa-119-internet-architecture-board-iab-report-00


*The question*: Are you in favor of running e-impact dispatching work to
existing WGs (as you said), or having a new "green" WG (as proponent)?

Please find follow-up responses inline below:


On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 10:02 PM Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) <
sure...@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Carlos,
>
>   Since your message was sent to Rob, I will let him respond, but I wanted
> to chime on some things you said about the e-impact program.
>

Thanks for this -- the salutation did not imply exclusivity.


>
>
> >  On 3/25/24, 5:09 PM, "Carlos Pignataro" cpign...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > …
>
> >  A second thought is that, while on the surface getting a couple of
> document with ‘green metrics’ is useful and might seem net-positive,
> knee-jerk reacting on tactics misaligned with strategy can further fragment
> the Eimpact work (which already can be characterized as ‘having a hard time
> finding itself’ with work from 2022 and no output).
>
>
>
> The e-impact program was created at the end of August 2023, barely seven
> months ago (and not 2022 as you mentioned). Announcement here:
>
>
>
> https://www.iab.org/announcements/eimpact-program/
>

You are absolutely right, and my mis-writing, with apologies. I meant (and
should have written) the IAB e-impact Workshop, which gave way to the IAB
e-impact Program -- in lieu of forming a WG.


>
>
> You seemed to want to run this program as a WG with set outputs. I had
> responded to you on list to mention that it was not
>
>
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/e-impact/nq7_ToPvRjIm612NwonOqDL-3zI/
>

To be clear, I do not want to run this program -- that is up to the program
leads.

However, the e-impact program chair (i.e., lead) slides show the
acknowledged need for some management, akin a WG. Quoting from
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/slides-interim-2024-eimpact-02-sessa-chair-slides-01
:
"
● Updating datatracker with all related drafts on this topic
● And a wiki page with drafts on this topic, along with status, next steps,
etc.
"


>
> Quoting relevant part of my mail above:
>
>
>
> “IAB programs don’t have milestones like WGs specifically because of the
> unclear nature of the space they are exploring. If you recall the initial
> meeting with the IAB regarding creation of the program that you
> participated in, this was something that was very clearly stated by various
> members of the IAB. If the work that needs to be done is clear it will be
> dispatched to a WG, an RG or if no relevant space exists to a BoF or
> proposed RG.”
>
>
>
> >  A third thought is that we had asked for a (broader and more
> e-impactful) WG a year ago, and that was shot down in favor of this IAB
> Program :-|
>
>
>
> Care sharing more info about this. Who did you ask for a WG and when? I am
> surprised because Jari and I have always and repeatedly made clear that the
> IAB program will not be doing any standards track work, and will delega

Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

[Carlos Pignataro]

Hi, Rob,

Thanks again for the thoughtful responses -- please also see inline.

[Hi, Suresh, please find one small parenthetical note for you inline as
well]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 6:28 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) 
wrote:

> Hi Carlos,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the comments.  I’ve provided some comments (RW) inline …
>
>
>
> *From: *Carlos Pignataro 
> *Date: *Monday, 25 March 2024 at 21:09
> *To: *Rob Wilton (rwilton) 
> *Cc: *Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero)  40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>, Ops Area WG , E-Impact IETF
> , inventory-y...@ietf.org ,
> Alexander Clemm , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <
> na...@cisco.com>, Ronald Bonica , Mahesh
> Jethanandani , Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <
> ali.rez...@nokia.com>, Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) ,
> Jari Arkko 
> *Subject: *Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage
> example
>
> Hi, Rob,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the comprehensive email, and for your desire to support the
> industry towards improved energy efficiency!
>
>
>
> RW: Great!  I think that at least our broader goals are aligned here,
> although you seem to disagree on the particular path that I’m pushing for.
> I’m hoping that we can manage to get alignment, working towards the common
> good.
>
>
>

Rather than disagreeing, I must say I am confused.

I imagine you are subscribed to e-impact as well, since some feedback
towards the lack of value of WG formation from participants was sent there
but not Cc'ed to Opsawg.


>
>
> My first reaction is that this direction seems counter to and in conflict
> with the conclusion and decisions from the IAB Program eimpact “interim”
> from just a month before:
>
> · See Chair Slides
> ,
> that codified: "*Metrics – Push through the WGs*” (etc. etc.)
>
> · See Minutes
> ,
> that captured: "*Suresh agreed and mentioned that the reason for having
> the drafts here is that people to get higher level view since all working
> groups need to have a sustainability angle*"
>
> RW: Sorry, I had a conflict and couldn’t attend the e-impact interim.  My
> previous understanding was based on when this was discussed between the
> IESG and IAB retreat last summer was that the IAB program was for more
> future looking working, and incubating ideas that were not yet ready to be
> standardized but any actual work would happen in IETF WGs.
>

No worries, that's why I included excepts from the proceedings.


>
>
> A second thought is that, while on the surface getting a couple of
> document with ‘green metrics’ is useful and might seem net-positive,
> knee-jerk reacting on tactics misaligned with strategy can further fragment
> the Eimpact work (which already can be characterized as ‘having a hard time
> finding itself’ with work from 2022 and no output).
>
>
>
> RW: Sorry, but I don’t really follow.  Why would standardizing metrics and
> power controls now impact the overall strategy?  This is perhaps where I
> see things quite differently.  I see this as a simple split between what we
> can standardize now, relatively quickly, starting to reap the benefits now
> vs spending a long time discussing what we plan to do before taking any
> action.
>

Sorry if I was not clear -- my point is that a top-down approach on
analyzing what focus areas / work areas have the largest e-impact seems
valuable yet bypassed. Metrics was a key topic from the beginning, and
clearly something to solve. There does not seem to be full alignment on
e-impact on what metrics are more important.


>
>
>
>
> There are clear risks like (1) believing that metrics/models are the
> ultimate goal of “eimpact/green’ work, while (as mentioned on eimpact)
> there’s no analysis of the most useful focus area, and (2) forgetting what
> Suresh wrote that many WGs need ‘green’, and this would separate work in a
> corner, as opposed to embedding and integrating it.
>
>
>
> RW: I don’t believe that metrics/models are the ultimate goal at all, but
> they do seem like a useful first step.  Further, the purpose of this
> proposed WG isn’t really to create new work, but to better corral the
> existing work that folks are already trying to get started within the IETF
> now, and as I see it, struggling to get traction.
>
>
>

That can be said about every piece of e-impact work. I appreciate and value
you take real action in pushing forward a subset of that which falls under
Opsawg. Really. Other ADs in other areas are not doing the same, which
would add to the huge imbalance that e-impact (iab program) already has.


>
>
> A third thought is that we had asked for a (broader and more e-impactful)
> WG a year ago, and that was shot down in favor of this IAB Program :-|
>
>
>
> RW: When I was an AD, both in the previous side meetings and in the
> IESG/IAB retreat I was also a vocal pr

Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

[Carlos Pignataro]

Jari, Rob,

Jari already made this point in a visual, clear way, please see *Slide 2*
of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-eimpactws-01/materials/slides-interim-2022-eimpactws-01-sessa-02-big-picture-01.pdf

There have been a few meta-topics in various e-impact discussions:

   1. Metrics / Data Models (electrical-power focused?) -- which seems to
   be the key focus of 'green-bof'
   2. Routing optimizations -- specifically TE and TVR, carbon-aware
   routing, Duty cycling
   3. Operations -- toolset to glean e-impact visibility
   4. Others -- dataplane, multicast.

Yet, there was still recent discussion as to whether the biggest impact can
be achieved in the use-phase or in manufacturing...

For a very concrete, narrowly-scoped 'get this YANG power thing' effort,
why not a DT -> Opsawg draft?

Thanks,

Carlos.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 8:08 PM Jari Arkko  wrote:

> Rob,
>
> One of the challenges we appear to be having is that the working groups
> that should potentially care about some of the metrics work for instance
> are busy. I find that somewhat unfortunate, but it may be what it is. The
> IAB program is not a place for us to standardize protocols or data models,
> though of course it can be a place to discuss what work is happening in the
> IETF or is not but should.  So if the WGs like OPSAWG or IVY have little
> bandwidth for the the work that needs to happen, then new IETF activities
> should be created for it.
>
> I have two comments to consider though:
>
> 1. Sometimes if the work is clear enough but no room in an existing
> working group, WGs can also created directly. Not sure if this is feasible
> in this case.
>
> 2. I’d be happy to contribute to a BoF personally. But it is *very*
> important that it be scoped extremely tightly. This is a topic where we can
> easily attract any level of discussion, and BoF proposals with clear,
> concrete goals (”add this YANG thing”) succeed, whereas proposals with
> vague or unclear or debated scopes may not proceed as fast or at all.
>
> Jari
>
> Rob Wilton (rwilton)  kirjoitti 26.3.2024 kello 0.48:
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> During IETF 119, I had a couple of discussions with Suresh and Mahesh
> regarding how we actual get some of the short term “green” related work
> happening in IETF to get critical mass and cross review and get published
> in the short term.  This seemed to somewhat culminate during the Power
> Metrics side meeting where it is clear that:
>
>- Various folks, representing different organizations, have various
>drafts related to Green networking.
>- Currently these drafts are spread out to different working groups,
>have various amounts of overlap, and it is unclear that they currently have
>a good homes and sufficient traction in IETF to progress effectively.
>- There was support in the meeting to target a WG forming BOF for IETF
>120 to create a new WG with a limited targeted charter.
>
>
> Hence the proposal from Suresh and I was to try and help coordinate for a
> WG forming BOF for IETF 120 scoped specifically to work on items that are
> understood and achievable in the short term.  E.g., roughly, I currently
> think of this work scope as being: e.g., energy related terminology and
> definitions (that should try and leverage and reference existing
> definitions from existing published sources), reporting energy and
> sustainability at the device and network layer via operational YANG models,
> and to facilitate configuration or YANG RPCs to influence and optimise
> power usage on network devices.  Longer term energy efficiency and Green
> networking goals are intended to be out of scope for the proposed WG’s
> initial charter, and should continue to be discussed as part of the
> E-Impact IAB program.  The exact scope of the charter would be worked out
> between the interested parties in the coming weeks.
>
> I’m happy to try and help this work gain traction within the IETF.  I
> appreciate that several of the proponents for this work are also from
> Cisco, but I have no vested interest other than trying to help the industry
> take small steps that may help improve energy efficiency in networks (e.g.,
> reporting power usage, and as Tony suggests by selectively powering off
> ports or linecards) to try and help mitigate some of the impacts of the
> Internet on climate change.
>
> To that end the proposed next steps from that side meeting were:
>
>
>1. For me to request the creation of new open “green-bof” mailing list
>from Mahesh (hopefully should be done over the next few days).
>2. I asked for, and received, permission to subscribe those who
>attended the side meeting, but once created, I also intended to circulate
>the existence of the mailing list to e-impact, and other places where
>related discussions have been taking place, so that others can join.
>3. To create a github location where we can reference drafts and
>collecting work on a BOF proposal and draft

Re: [OPSAWG] [IVY] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

[Carlos Pignataro]

Thank you, Jan! I appreciate the clarity and thorough explanation.

How is this problem statement you list below (my paraphrasing for
simplicity, please correct as needed):
   (1) "devices can report their energy and/or power usage"
   (2) "work belongs / is spread across multiple WGs and it is hard to
track")

Different than
   (1) scope of e-impact,
   (2) action that the IAB e-impact Program leads took at the interim [1],
to "Updating datatracker with all related drafts on this topic. And a wiki
page with drafts on this topic, along with status, next steps, etc."

Thanks!

[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/slides-interim-2024-eimpact-02-sessa-chair-slides-01

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 5:46 AM Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) 
wrote:

> Carlos, all,
>
> I'm confused by this bullet point:
>
> *•  next steps? E.g. WG coordination/status, form a WG Design
> Team, call for a BOF?*
>
> Could you please clarify?
>
> I understood there's no WG (and hence no WG coordination nor status), in
> favor of the IAB Program. There cannot be a WG Design Team without a WG. I
> cannot find "design team" or 'BOF" (WG forming or not?) in the minutes of
> eimpact meetings ,
> maybe I missed it.
>
> Is this an effort parallel to eimpact or a shadow meeting?
>
>
> Since those were my words, maybe I should try to explain what they mean.
>
> There are a number of us IETF participants, from a rather long list of
> equipment providers as well as operators, that are working on solving very
> concrete and current issues with respect to energy management in network
> equipment. For example, we have noted that most devices can report their
> energy and/or power usage, but they all do that in different ways and with
> different precision. We see a real need to standardize this, in order to
> realize use cases many operators are asking for, somewhat urgently.
>
> In the bullet point above, the "WG coordination/status" intended to let
> everyone chime in with the list of relevant ongoing work they were aware
> of. As expected, we noted that the work we have in mind is currently spread
> out across half a dozen IETF working groups, so it's not easy to track or
> get an overview. The "form a WG Design Team" point meant to discuss the
> interest in the formation of a design team in an existing WG, such as
> OPSAWG. Some WGs have very wide charters, and therefore forming design
> teams around particular areas might be an effective way to progress. The
> "call for a BOF" point was there to gauge the interest in forming a new WG
> with a fairly narrow scope to progress some of the work, especially around
> management aspects of network equipment, such as common YANG modules or
> collection framework principles. Most people on the side meeting seemed to
> favor a BOF as the best way to progress this work. This conclusion or
> initiative is not coming out of IAB or E-impact.
>
> In this thread, there was some discussion around energy aware routing (and
> other protocol updates), and whether that would be a fruitful avenue for
> IETF work. While I'm not precluding that from the agenda at some point in
> the future, such topics have been absent from the discussions in any of the
> existing WGs, as far as I have seen (well, maybe CATS, ALTO and TVR have
> occasionally almost touched the subject), and certainly also in the design
> teams/BOFs discussions I have participated in so far. The focus has been on
> basic standardization of telemetry collection, metering and basic
> management that pretty much all devices already do, just in vendor specific
> ways.
>
> Best Regards,
> /jan
>
>
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

[Carlos Pignataro]

Thank you, Henk.

I support adoption of this document (as a co-author).

As spelled out in the Acknowledgements of this document, its genesis
started in this very mailing list with a need for clarification that seemed
deja vu.

As such, I feel updating RFC 6291 will take clarity to a next level.

Thanks,

Carlos.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:06 AM Henk Birkholz 
wrote:

> Dear OPSAWG members,
>
> this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
>
> >
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03.html
>
> ending on Thursday, May 2nd.
>
> As a reminder, this I-D summarizes how the term "Operations,
> Administration, and Maintenance" (OAM) is used currently & historically
> in the IETF and intends to consolidate unambiguous and protocol agnostic
> terminology for OAM. The summary includes descriptions of narrower
> semantics introduced by added qualifications the term OAM and a list of
> common capabilities that can be found in nodes processing OAM packets.
>
> The chairs acknowledge a positive poll result at IETF119, but there has
> not been much discussion on the list yet. We would like to gather
> feedback from the WG if there is interest to further contribute and
> review. As a potential enabler for discussions, this call will last
> three weeks.
>
> Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments
> you may have.
>
>
> For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
>
> Henk
>
> ___
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

[Justin Iurman]

Support adoption. I think this document is *very* useful (speaking as an 
IOAM contributor in ippm).


Cheers,
Justin

On 4/10/24 13:05, Henk Birkholz wrote:

Dear OPSAWG members,

this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of


https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03.html


ending on Thursday, May 2nd.

As a reminder, this I-D summarizes how the term "Operations, 
Administration, and Maintenance" (OAM) is used currently & historically 
in the IETF and intends to consolidate unambiguous and protocol agnostic 
terminology for OAM. The summary includes descriptions of narrower 
semantics introduced by added qualifications the term OAM and a list of 
common capabilities that can be found in nodes processing OAM packets.


The chairs acknowledge a positive poll result at IETF119, but there has 
not been much discussion on the list yet. We would like to gather 
feedback from the WG if there is interest to further contribute and 
review. As a potential enabler for discussions, this call will last 
three weeks.


Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments 
you may have.



For the OPSAWG co-chairs,

Henk

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg


___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

[Michael Richardson]

I read whaaat-question-mark a few weeks ago, and I never noticed the obtuse
filename last time.   I think the document is useful.  I would wish that it
might give ANIMA's ACP a clear name... we would up with "Virtual In-Band OAM"
which I think nobody was happy about (but was least hated).

Once adopted, please give it a sane filename.


--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
   Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide






signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] [E-impact] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

[Suresh Krishnan]

Hi Carlos,

> On Apr 10, 2024, at 8:00 AM, Carlos Pignataro  wrote:
> 
> Hi, Suresh,
> 
> Thanks for the response, and apologies for my delay!

Yep. No worries.

> 
> Please find my follow-up inline below, and in the meantime, one additional 
> question to you -- context (my emphasis):
> • 
> I seem to have gotten the impression, from your words and IAB program lead 
> slides, that there was no eimpact-related meeting in Brisbane,

Correct. There was no e-impact program meeting in Brisbane. 

> and the goal was to push drafts through the respective WGs and not through a 
> WG-forming BOF:

Toerless did mention that some of the draft authors were thinking of a side 
meeting in Brisbane and it was not official.

> • https://youtu.be/bfpuL1mkr3U?feature=shared&t=9646
> • 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/slides-interim-2024-eimpact-02-sessa-chair-slides-01
> • "Metrics – Push through the WGs"
> • "Benchmarking scenario or methodology standardization – BMWG"
> • "Carbon-aware routing – IRTF? TVR?"
> • "Do an interim session on backcasting what we need to do"
> • 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/minutes-interim-2024-eimpact-02-202402161500-00
> • "Suresh mentioned that the dispatch function is certainly in 
> scope and depending on the readiness for engineering the work will end up in 
> the IETF or the IRTF. "
> • But then, you were proponent of a side-meeting
> • https://wiki.ietf.org/en/meeting/119/sidemeetings
> • "Power Metrics: concrete usage example", "mpalm...@cisco.com, 
> jlind...@cisco.com, sure...@cisco.com"
> •  that said " (4) next steps? E.g. WG coordination/status, form 
> a WG Design Team, call for a BOF?"

Marisol and Jan organized the side meeting and sent the invites fairly wide to 
the WGs where the concerned drafts were previously discussed. Since both of 
them were remote, I am listed as a contact in case there were any local issues 
in the meeting room. 

> • Even though the IAB slides on IETF119 say:
> • "Short term focus on metrics, benchmarking with dispatch to 
> relevant IETF WGs" 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-iabopen-chair-slides-00
> • "No in-person program meetings at IETF-119 But feel free to join 
> the program mailing list: e...@iab.org and e-imp...@iab.org" 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-ietf-sessa-119-internet-architecture-board-iab-report-00
> 
> 
> The question: Are you in favor of running e-impact dispatching work to 
> existing WGs (as you said), or having a new "green" WG (as proponent)?

There is no green WG yet. There will hopefully be a green *BOF* in Vancouver 
and the sponsoring AD along with the IESG will decide whether a WG needs to be 
formed or if the work needs to be divvied up among existing working groups. I 
will not be a proponent of this BoF, but I am extremely supportive of the work 
happening (either in a new working group or in existing working groups).
Also, E-impact cannot and will not do standards track work. Any standards track 
work has to be done in an IETF working group. Hope this is clear.

> 
> Please find follow-up responses inline below:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 10:02 PM Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) 
>  wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>   Since your message was sent to Rob, I will let him respond, but I wanted to 
> chime on some things you said about the e-impact program.
> 
> Thanks for this -- the salutation did not imply exclusivity.
>   >  On 3/25/24, 5:09 PM, "Carlos Pignataro" cpign...@gmail.com wrote:
> > …
> >  A second thought is that, while on the surface getting a couple of 
> > document with ‘green metrics’ is useful and might seem net-positive, 
> > knee-jerk reacting on tactics misaligned with strategy can further fragment 
> > the Eimpact work (which already can be characterized as ‘having a hard time 
> > finding itself’ with work from 2022 and no output).
>  The e-impact program was created at the end of August 2023, barely seven 
> months ago (and not 2022 as you mentioned). Announcement here:
>  https://www.iab.org/announcements/eimpact-program/
> 
> You are absolutely right, and my mis-writing, with apologies. I meant (and 
> should have written) the IAB e-impact Workshop, which gave way to the IAB 
> e-impact Program -- in lieu of forming a WG.

No worries.

>   You seemed to want to run this program as a WG with set outputs. I had 
> responded to you on list to mention that it was not
>  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/e-impact/nq7_ToPvRjIm612NwonOqDL-3zI/
> 
> To be clear, I do not want to run this program -- that is up to the program 
> leads.
> 
> However, the e-impact program chair (i.e., lead) slides show the acknowledged 
> need for some management, akin a WG. Quoting from 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-e

Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

[Thomas.Graf]

Dear OPSAWG,

I have read the document and support the adoption in OPSAWG. A OAM terminology 
is much needed.

Best wishes
Thomas

-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG  On Behalf Of Henk Birkholz
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 1:06 PM
To: OPSAWG 
Subject: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for 
draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03


Be aware: This is an external email.



Dear OPSAWG members,

this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of

> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-ques
> tion-mark-03.html

ending on Thursday, May 2nd.

As a reminder, this I-D summarizes how the term "Operations, Administration, 
and Maintenance" (OAM) is used currently & historically in the IETF and intends 
to consolidate unambiguous and protocol agnostic terminology for OAM. The 
summary includes descriptions of narrower semantics introduced by added 
qualifications the term OAM and a list of common capabilities that can be found 
in nodes processing OAM packets.

The chairs acknowledge a positive poll result at IETF119, but there has not 
been much discussion on the list yet. We would like to gather feedback from the 
WG if there is interest to further contribute and review. As a potential 
enabler for discussions, this call will last three weeks.

Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments you may 
have.


For the OPSAWG co-chairs,

Henk

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg